Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[stevevw]

Stop it Steve. I mentioned the thing (type 1 v. type 2 errors) and said we should move on because it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (or even whatever it is I am discussing with you now). It is merely an explanation of how a tendency to apply unwarranted agency to natural phenomena can arise through natural selection. There is no need to discuss it more. LET'S MOVE ON.

Fair enough.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. Science "claims" that there is no evidence of anything else and leaves the question open.

Thats the point I am making. That the science method in saying theres no evidence that consciousness is beyond brain and therefore consciousness is a epiphenomena of the physical brain is claiming that the only way we can know consciousness is by measuring it in quantifiable terms.

That only empiricle evidence counts and all else is rejected beforehand. It is assumed beforehand that consciousness is a physical phenomena when ultimately it doesn't really know. So the question is not left open ultimately because its discounted all other ways of knowing about consciousness and reality as a priori.

Nor does Christian doctrine require that our consciousness can exist without a brain. Why do you think Christians assert their belief in the resurrection of the body?

For most consciousness is that something of self, an essence or spirit that lives on beyond the physical similar to the soul. So in that sense all Christians and even non Christians believe in the soul and life after death.

 

[stevevw]

Without doubt.

If we reject God. But are we doing that? Or are we just moving on from your theology? Whether the results are good or bad is a matter of opinion.

If we as a society are moving on from God then we are moving towards some replacement. The innate need to believe cannot be left empty. Its like food. If we stop eating salads in the west we will have the need to eat something else even if its bad for us because of our innate sense of hunger.

Our spirits hunger for some sort of belief in metaphysics. Thats why so many alternative beliefs are thriving in recent years. I remember when Riki and all that goes with it was popular in recent years. All about the Aoura of a person like its the soul.

Aliens are all the rage now and theres a degree of supernaturalism as people attribute an almost supernatural ability to aliens like they can read minds, do stuff that defies our own physical limitations.

People will turn to these ideas and make them up just to fill that void of belief.

 

[stevevw]

Science is examining natural phenomena with natural experimental apparatuses and methods and coming to conclusions about the possible natural explanations. That is all -- n
othing more, nothing less.

I disgree. In you saying that consciousness is only a result of the physical brain and those who believe its something beyond are unreal and deluded you are making an ontological claim about the reality of consciousness.

Rather you or any person using the science method should be saying that the science method is only measuring a certain aspect of reality in quantified terms. Its limited in its method and therefore cannot say whether consciousness can be something beyond brain or not. That would therefore leave the question truely open.

But people don't. They cannot help but stand on the claim as fact and the only true measure of reality and therefore are dismissing all other ways of knowling. Thats because we cannot seperate the philosopher from the science, the observer doing the measurement from what they are measuring.

You are projecting. This has no bearing on the reality of scientific inquiry. I have had regular, frequent, and intense conversations on science with other scientists for 25+ years and we NEVER talk about supernatural causation EVER.

Thats right, its not allowed so after some time its forgotton about or not even relevant, The science method is a paradigm so it comes with a set of rules and principles that dictate the language that can be used, what questions can be ask and how things can be determined. Epistemically it restricts how we can know things and excludes others before any investigation has taken place.

This is opposed to other paradigms like reality beyond the physical which would require a different set of language, questions and measuring methods. But science will claim that the science method trumps all other ways of knowing because its the only way to know reality.

Whereas say someone who supports consciousness beyond brain may also support quantified reality as part of the equation but with limits. But the same cannot be said for the science method which is fair enough. So long as they are not claiming its the only reality we can know. But it seems the way the paradigm works they are forced to make it the only reality metaphysically.

Applying the results of science to a conclusion about the supernatural IS NOT SCIENCE, nor part of science. It is "philosophy".

I though the science method can be used to refute the supernatural and in doing so renders it unreal and made up or psudoscience. That is using science to discount the supernatural.

YES WE CAN. We do it everyday and every time. The MAJORITY of scientists believe in some sort of supernatural thing and they use methodological naturalism for their research EVERY DAY. It is so common we just don't even need to talk about it amongst ourselves. By insisting otherwise you are just plain wrong about something you clearly don't have any personal experience of. That is a clue that you should stop.

But those scientists who do believe in the supernatural are philosophical about the place of science. They understand that the science is only telling them about a certain aspect of reality and its certainly not the everything.

They are the very example of how we cannot seperate the science from philosophy in that they are open to more than just the science method to know reality. In fact I would say that they actually believe that reality is fundementally supernatural and not quantified.

 

[BCP1928]

Thats the point I am making. That the science method in saying theres no evidence that consciousness is beyond brain and therefore consciousness is a epiphenomena of the physical brain is claiming that the only way we can know consciousness is by measuring it in quantifiable terms.

That only empiricle evidence counts and all else is rejected beforehand. It is assumed beforehand that consciousness is a physical phenomena when ultimately it doesn't really know. So the question is not left open ultimately because its discounted all other ways of knowing about consciousness and reality as a priori.

For most consciousness is that something of self, an essence or spirit that lives on beyond the physical similar to the soul. So in that sense all Christians and even non Christians believe in the soul and life after death.

You are once again attributing more certainty to science than it claims for itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disgree. In you saying that consciousness is only a result of the physical brain and those who believe its something beyond are unreal and deluded you are making an ontological claim about the reality of consciousness.

I have said no such thing in this conversation. I did not bring up or discuss "consciousness". (Instead I have ignored your prior attempts to bring it up. We went around before, there is not point doing it again.)

Rather you or any person using the science method should be saying that the science method is only measuring a certain aspect of reality in quantified terms. Its limited in its method and therefore cannot say whether consciousness can be something beyond brain or not. That would therefore leave the question truely open.

Scientists that study conscious work with brains, but that is not the topic of this conversation or thread.

But people don't. They cannot help but stand on the claim as fact and the only true measure of reality and therefore are dismissing all other ways of knowling. Thats because we cannot seperate the philosopher from the science, the observer doing the measurement from what they are measuring.

Sure we can. We do it all the time. Just because you don't (and given your incredulity, I suspect that you don't) doesn't mean the we don't.

Thats right, its not allowed so after some time its forgotton about or not even relevant, The science method is a paradigm so it comes with a set of rules and principles that dictate the language that can be used, what questions can be ask and how things can be determined.

Doing good so far. Science does natural things.

Epistemically it restricts how we can know things and excludes others before any investigation has taken place.

Science doesn't try to explain everything.

This is opposed to other paradigms like reality beyond the physical which would require a different set of language, questions and measuring methods. But science will claim that the science method trumps all other ways of knowing because its the only way to know reality.

Whoa there pal. Science makes no such claim.

Whereas say someone who supports consciousness beyond brain may also support quantified reality as part of the equation but with limits. But the same cannot be said for the science method which is fair enough. So long as they are not claiming its the only reality we can know. But it seems the way the paradigm works they are forced to make it the only reality metaphysically.

Science doesn't deal in metaphysics (nor do I).

I though the science method can be used to refute the supernatural and in doing so renders it unreal and made up or psudoscience. That is using science to discount the supernatural.

If someone makes a supernatural claim about an effect happening in the real world it might be testable. Many such claims have been made over the years and some supernatural claims have failed.

But those scientists who do believe in the supernatural are philosophical about the place of science. They understand that the science is only telling them about a certain aspect of reality and its certainly not the everything.

I have no idea. Why don't you ask one. Assuming won't inform you at all.

They are the very example of how we cannot seperate the science from philosophy in that they are open to more than just the science method to know reality. In fact I would say that they actually believe that reality is fundementally supernatural and not quantified.

Oh good grief, no. As I said in the text you were responding to. The supernatural and god beliefs just don't come up in professional scientific conversations. They are irrelevant since science doesn't study them. There are scientists I have known for 15, 20, 25 years whose religious positions I don't know (and who don't know mine). (Let me rephrase that, almost *none* of them known mine, nor I theirs. It just isn't a scientifically relevant bit of information.)

 

[stevevw]

You are once again attributing more certainty to science than it claims for itself.

Actually its the person using science who is overstating sciences certainty. Science is a methology created by humans, the scientist. The human behind science method uses it to dimiss consciousness beyond brain as being unreal and a delusion. Even the literature on it states this when it says that consciousness arose as a byproduct of physical processes such as the combination of complex neural correlations.

Thats a pretty certain claim when used as evidence to refute all other possibilities. I have had people on this thread and forum calling consciousness beyond brain Pseudoscience and delusion created by the brain and evolution for survival purposes.

Thats a pretty clear and certain position. Otherwise they would have to admit they are wrong and its not certain that consciousness is due to the physical brain and take back their claims refuting beyond brain influences as possibilities.

 

[Big_Sinner]

My opinion will probably not be popular for many Christians. However, I am convinced that there is something to it. Namely, I believe that the Antichrist hides elsewhere, not in this 'godless' world. The Antichrist is within us, when because of these events we become self-righteous, immediately starting to condemn these 'sinners,' quickly forgetting about love and understanding towards fellow human beings. Celebrities in these 'events' perform in a way that gives the external impression of someone who is sinful. This sin is visible, and we immediately start to condemn it. We forget that the true source of all evil in the world is always our own sin, not the sin of others. My sin is the source of evil, not the 'godless' society around me. My sin. And my sin is not visible outwardly, how many times I am selfish, full of earthly temptations to which I often succumb, how many times I put myself first, not others. And this is me, who is a Christian, me, who knows Jesus. And now should I search for evil in the world around me, which may not even recognize the love of Jesus Christ? For myself, I can say that I am not worried about the 'godless society' rushing to ruin; rather, I am more concerned about how difficult it is for me to follow Christ.

 

[stevevw]

I have said no such thing in this conversation. I did not bring up or discuss "consciousness". (Instead I have ignored your prior attempts to bring it up. We went around before, there is not point doing it again.)

So I did a search for your comments about consciousness and forgot to search this thread only but rather all comments came up so I checked those as well.

I knew you had mentioned to me somewhere that consciousness equates to the physical brain and is something unreal beyond that. I was confident because that is what people who believe in there only being physical reality do, its natural to do so. They use the science method to support their claims and to refute all other possibilities of knowing reality. Here are some examples

A fully natural view of the brain and consciousness would very much equate any experience as a "brain state".
Consciousness in humans is known to be localized in the brain. This isn't some presupposition about naturalism, this is empirically demonstrated.
Therefore consciousness is internal to the body.
Consciousness is brain tissue doing weird brain stuff.
Consciousness is pretty clearly an emergent property of sophisticated brains.

Scientists that study conscious work with brains, but that is not the topic of this conversation or thread.

Scientists also study what consciousness represents beyond brains as a fundemental aspect of reality. It is relevant I think because it feeds back to my point that humans are intuitive and innate believers of such concepts about mind and body duality, life after death, the soul and a creative and moral agent.

This then feeds into the point that if society has a natural inclination then when they get rid of God they will fill that innate need with some other belief. This is important for understanding how current beliefs and ideologies may be creating even worse problems for society and leading them down a path to destruction. Just like those of S&G.

Sure we can. We do it all the time. Just because you don't (and given your incredulity, I suspect that you don't) doesn't mean the we don't.

Not when it comes to people using science to refute all other ways of knowing. You do it all the time in dismissing all other possibilities because they don't conform to the pre assumed criteria that physical reality is the only reality.

People may say they don't but they cannot help but do it. Its only natural. If your worldview is that there is only physical reality then your going to dismiss all else as unreal.

Doing good so far. Science does natural things.

I agree science is good at quantifying the physical aspect of reality. But reality is so much more than that. If science kept to its lane it would be ok. But it doesn't. Well at least the subject using it doesn't.

Science doesn't try to explain everything.

I agree but when people use it to dismiss other ways of knowing as unreal its claiming to know everything. Or atleast claiming that the only way to know everything is by methological naturalism.

Whoa there pal. Science makes no such claim.

Sorry I meant to say the methodology and the scientist using it. The methodology assums the only measure for reality is naturalism and physicalism. When someone uses science to refute any alternative ways of knowing reality then they are claiming that methological naturalism is the only way we can measure and know reality.

Science doesn't deal in metaphysics (nor do I).

Thats right because it has ruled it out before any invesigation has begun as to what reality actually is. But in some ways it does dabble in metaphysics by proposing that there is actually 'matter' outside our heads, outside our minds that is real. Yet we cannot get outside our minds to directly check if this is the case.

It may be like I said that we live in a simulation and what we think is 'matter' and objective reality is just a surface reflection, a programmed interface reflecting a deeper reality. This idea is actually quite popular in varying degrees in science so its not so far fetched.

If someone makes a supernatural claim about an effect happening in the real world it might be testable. Many such claims have been made over the years and some supernatural claims have failed.

Its not so much that these supernatural or transcendent phenomena are testable through the science method. But that the scientific paradigm itself is wrong, doesn't look for the right type of evidence, asks the wrong questions and that a completely different paradigm is needed to even begin to measure supernatural phenomena.

Just like in the past where we had to change our fundememtal thinking between the classical and the quantum worlds we may need another paradigm shift where completely new and different questions need to be asked. The longer a paradigm gets stuck and is limited in its explanatory power the more a complete change in thinking is needed.

As I said many are beginning to believe that scientific physicalism is limited and we need to expand into a wider range of possibilities. Consciousness or Mind beyond the physical and as fundemental is one of the most popular alternatives in its various forms.

I have no idea. Why don't you ask one. Assuming won't inform you at all.

You don't need to ask them as its common sense and logical. If they believe in God or supernatural possibilities then they must also believe that methological naturalism and naturalism are but one aspect and not the be all and end all of what reality actually is. Otherwise they cut off their own belief in the reality of something beyond the physical.

Oh good grief, no. As I said in the text you were responding to. The supernatural and god beliefs just don't come up in professional scientific conversations. They are irrelevant since science doesn't study them. There are scientists I have known for 15, 20, 25 years whose religious positions I don't know (and who don't know mine). (Let me rephrase that, almost *none* of them known mine, nor I theirs. It just isn't a scientifically relevant bit of information.)

Well of course as in the course of working with scientists and doing that particular dicipline its not relevant. In fact its not allowed to be considered as a priori. The rules governing the method have factored out supernaturalism and belief.

But if you were to get to know the scientists outside this parameter then they may speak of their beliefs in the supernatural. So the practice of science is contained in a compartment of life which has its own rules and language ect.

But what tends to happen because science especially the hard sciences like physics, biology, neurology and biology will often be closely related to telling us about fundemental reality such as the Higs Boson or DNA, proteins, chemicals that are about bringing into being the objective world.

At this point its very close to metaphysics and its a small step to claiming that science is actually telling us about what is, an ontological position about what ultimately is fundemental reality. That its contained within the causal closure of the physical and therefore no supernaturalism is required.

Thats why I think its hard to seperate philosophy from the sciences because in some cases the issue is so close to the big questions in life that we cannot take oursleves out of the equation. We tend to not just see the world in quantified measurements but we also attach meaning at the same time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This whole sub-thread is off the rails and I am not going to indulge it anymore.

We were in a fruitless conversation about the nature of science and it had come up that the majority of scientists have some sort of supernatural claim and you made some claims about how that impacts their work (and by implication impacts the rest of us) and then I suggested if you wanted to know you should *ask* such a scientist about it. Instead you just rejected empirical (or even anecdotal) data as a source for making conclusions and wrote this (THIS!):

You don't need to ask them as its common sense and logical.

Common sense is a *HORRIBLE* methodology for solving complex problems and dealing with unknowns. "Common sense" leads to a large number of demonstrably false conclusions. It is not how science works and it is not a path to "truth" or understanding. If you want to know the state of things -- GET SOME DATA! (Don't make it up in your head and call it "common sense.)

If they believe in God or supernatural possibilities then they must also believe that methological naturalism and naturalism are but one aspect and not the be all and end all of what reality actually is. Otherwise they cut off their own belief in the reality of something beyond the physical.
Well of course as in the course of working with scientists and doing that particular dicipline its not relevant. In fact its not allowed to be considered as a priori. The rules governing the method have factored out supernaturalism and belief.

Again, if you want to know how actual scientists working in science deal with their supernatural beliefs go find some and ask them. I believe they have whole organizations of such. (There are several on this site, but I am not going to tag them as I wish to remain on friendly grounds with them and they don't deserve this conversation.)

In response to my *factual statement* that in a quarter century of scientific conversations that we did not discuss the supernatural or supernatural causation, you then wrote the following filled with what are effectively accusations of code switching and rule enforcement. (Also included in previous posts.) You seem to lack understanding of positions you do not hold and you keep projecting your own positions and opinion onto others. In this case scientists.

But if you were to get to know the scientists outside this parameter then they may speak of their beliefs in the supernatural. So the practice of science is contained in a compartment of life which has its own rules and language ect.

But what tends to happen because science especially the hard sciences like physics, biology, neurology and biology will often be closely related to telling us about fundemental reality such as the Higs Boson or DNA, proteins, chemicals that are about bringing into being the objective world.

At this point its very close to metaphysics and its a small step to claiming that science is actually telling us about what is, an ontological position about what ultimately is fundemental reality. That its contained within the causal closure of the physical and therefore no supernaturalism is required.

Thats why I think its hard to seperate philosophy from the sciences because in some cases the issue is so close to the big questions in life that we cannot take oursleves out of the equation. We tend to not just see the world in quantified measurements but we also attach meaning at the same time.

 

[stevevw]

This whole sub-thread is off the rails and I am not going to indulge it anymore.

We were in a fruitless conversation about the nature of science and it had come up that the majority of scientists have some sort of supernatural claim and you made some claims about how that impacts their work (and by implication impacts the rest of us) and then I suggested if you wanted to know you should *ask* such a scientist about it. Instead you just rejected empirical (or even anecdotal) data as a source for making conclusions and wrote this (THIS!):

Common sense is a *HORRIBLE* methodology for solving complex problems and dealing with unknowns. "Common sense" leads to a large number of demonstrably false conclusions. It is not how science works and it is not a path to "truth" or understanding. If you want to know the state of things -- GET SOME DATA! (Don't make it up in your head and call it "common sense.)

Well my common sense and logic was based on the data. The studies and research into how humans think. But it all doesn't just come down to science. There is no science for belief. Belief happens despite the science. My point was also one of logic which does not need any scientific evidence but is self evidenced.

If you believe in the possibility of the supernatural while being a scientist then it stands to reason logically that you don't believe physicalism and naturalism are the only aspect of reality as opposed to scientist who are atheistic and don't believe in supernaturalism. I don't need to ask any scientist for that conclusion. If they claim that naturalism is the only reality then they undermine their own position that there is a supernatural aspect to reality.

But you are right regarding this subtopic going too far. I was merely making a point that belief in metaphysics is natural to humans and if we get rid of God or whatever belief system or ideology society uses then it will be replaced with another even if that is disguised as a secular ideology.

Unfortunately that was challenged and we had to go into some banter about whether this is the case and it seems to be now going in circles. But I will stick to my claim based on the evidence that humans are innate believers and that since mainstream secular society has rid themselves of God completely out of the public square we have taken on a new belief and ideology in the form of Wokism which has elements of paganism and a mix of other ideas that are not based in fact but belief.

Again, if you want to know how actual scientists working in science deal with their supernatural beliefs go find some and ask them. I believe they have whole organizations of such. (There are several on this site, but I am not going to tag them as I wish to remain on friendly grounds with them and they don't deserve this conversation.)

The point wasn't about what exactly are their supernatural beliefs but rather than these are people who can hold more than one position about reality. Which I might add is probably the position of the majority of Christians. This is opposed to scientists and others who take a purely physical or material position about reality.

Anyway the point was about the naturalness of belief in the supernatural and why society cannot rid itself of having some belief in metaphysical ideas regarding reality and morality for that matter.

In response to my *factual statement* that in a quarter century of scientific conversations that we did not discuss the supernatural or supernatural causation, you then wrote the following filled with what are effectively accusations of code switching and rule enforcement.

No that is your reading. Lets examine what I actually wrote rather than your personalised version.

Steve said
If they believe in God or supernatural possibilities then they must also believe that methological naturalism and naturalism are but one aspect and not the be all and end all of what reality actually is. Otherwise they cut off their own belief in the reality of something beyond the physical.

This is not controversial or filled with accusations. This is a self evident fact based on logic. A person cannot hold both the belief in a naturalistic and physical only reality while also believing in a supernatural reality. Its a contradictory and impossible position to take as one defeats the other.

Steve then said

Well of course as in the course of working with scientists and doing that particular dicipline its not relevant. In fact its not allowed to be considered as a priori. The rules governing the method have factored out supernaturalism and belief.

I have effectively said that while scientsts are working within their diciplines they don't allow the supernatural. They have prior assumptions about how we should measure reality and they work with a paradigm which has rules, language and methods that factor out the supernatural.

How is explaining that science and scientists work with a paradigm accusing anyone of code switching and rule breaking. It may help to define what a scientific paradigm is.

Paradigm, namely a set of universally recognized principles, methodological processes and cultural concepts that refers to the work of the “scientific community” of a certain era. The scientific community is made up of scientists who, possessing the same paradigm, share the same ethical vision, assessment criteria, interpretative models, methods and solutions for solving problems and who believe their successors ought to be educated on the basis of these same contents and values.

Kuhn: paradigms and revolutions in scientific development | IBSA Foundation

In “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Kuhn analyzes the history of science and its various implications in all areas of research.

www.ibsafoundation.org

So the science community will have assumptions, rules, criteria, techniques, interpretive models and methods that must be adhered to within that paradigm. Difference sciences will have different paradigms that they must adhere to which may be different from each other and even conflict. Such as the paradigms for physics and psychology.

This is simply stating the reality of how science works within society. Others may disagree with the science paradigm and have a different worldview. The point is as Kuhn points out is that science itself is a social enterprise which has its own worldview and this can change such as with paradigm shifts which bring a completely different view according to the time. How we see the world today as reality was completely different to what scientists believed was real 100 years ago. This will change again in the future.

Kuhn looked at the history of science and argued that science does not simply progress by stages based upon neutral observations (e.g., Positivism). Acceptance or rejection of some paradigm is, he argued, a social process as much as a logical process. Kuhn used his incommensurability thesis to disprove the view that paradigm shifts are objective. Truth is relative to the paradigm. Science is a product of the society in which it is practiced.

Thomas Kuhn: Paradigm Shift

Thomas Kuhn attacks “development-by-accumulation” views of science, which hold that science progresses linearly by accumulating theory-independent facts.

www.simplypsychology.org

science can succeed in making progress only if the relevant scientific community shares a strong commitment to their shared theoretical beliefs, values, instruments, techniques and even metaphysics. This constellation of shared commitments is what Kuhn means by the term Disciplinary Matrix and this is the first meaning of the term paradigm. The paradigm is the shared worldview that points all its members in the right direction and while there are rules that govern how the community proceeds these rules are implicit.

What is a Paradigm? | Thomas Kuhn - The Living Philosophy

Thomas Kuhn’s work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one […]

www.thelivingphilosophy.com

(Also included in previous posts.) You seem to lack understanding of positions you do not hold and you keep projecting your own positions and opinion onto others. In this case scientists.

No I am not speaking of scientists as scientists within their diciplines but as humans beings. Scientists are not immune to be human, to being subject to human natural ways of thinking and believing. Science within the paradigms of how humans see the world and how we can know reality is but one position in the overall scheme of what is reality. In that sense its a social construction about reality and not science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well my common sense and logic was based on the data.

It wasn't based on data about scientists. That's my point and don't care how many times you cite that "tendency to belief" literature. I ALREADY KNOW THAT. It is *precisely* those scientists (the ones with supernatural beliefs) that we had mentioned. Their supernatural beliefs are so IRRELEVANT to the practice of science that I don't know which ones they are among the scientists I have worked with, interacted with, or done combat with for a quarter century. (The few I do know about their religious beliefs are because we have social relationships, but not even all of those.) The only "scientists" that I have ever seen clearly influenced by their religious beliefs work as shiny baubles from the likes of AiG, DI, CMI, etc.

You clearly have no practical experience with the practice of science, so I would appreciate it if you stopped telling me how my profession works. (I have quoted the parts of your post I read carefully. I see you quoted Kuhn, a sure sign you are grasping for straws. No one in science feel any obligation to do thing because of Kuhn.)

 

[stevevw]

Just came across this video which I think is sort of relevant to this thread lol. Its a piece from some radio journalist Paul Hardy and its called 'If I were the Devil' in 1966. Some say its like a prophesy about where society was heading in the future based on where it was at in 1966 and the trends that were occuring at the time.

It actually has some pretty spot on predictions and describes todays society pretty much to how things have turned out. In the video Joe Rogan is reacting to how these predictions are so accurate lol.

 

[BCP1928]

Just came across this video which I think is sort of relevant to this thread lol. Its a piece from some radio journalist Paul Hardy and its called 'If I were the Devil' in 1966. Some say its like a prophesy about where society was heading in the future based on where it was at in 1966 and the trends that were occuring at the time.

It actually has some pretty spot on predictions and describes todays society pretty much to how things have turned out. In the video Joe Rogan is reacting to how these predictions are so accurate lol.

Paul Harvey, not Hardy.

 

[stevevw]

It wasn't based on data about scientists. That's my point and don't care how many times you cite that "tendency to belief" literature. I ALREADY KNOW THAT. It is *precisely* those scientists (the ones with supernatural beliefs) that we had mentioned. Their supernatural beliefs are so IRRELEVANT to the practice of science that I don't know which ones they are among the scientists I have worked with, interacted with, or done combat with for a quarter century. (The few I do know about their religious beliefs are because we have social relationships, but not even all of those.) The only "scientists" that I have ever seen clearly influenced by their religious beliefs work as shiny baubles from the likes of AiG, DI, CMI, etc.

You clearly have no practical experience with the practice of science, so I would appreciate it if you stopped telling me how my profession works. (I have quoted the parts of your post I read carefully. I see you quoted Kuhn, a sure sign you are grasping for straws. No one in science feel any obligation to do thing because of Kuhn.)

You have jumped to conclusions here and are going on about something I have not even said or was thinking. Perhaps you should take a bit more time to read and think about what I said.

I clearly seperated the scientist and their work from the supernatural and stated that this does not come into the conversation in science itself. I was actually talking about the scientist beyond the science, beyond the discipline, the human being.

I was saying that belief in some metaphysical aspect of reality is natural to humans based on the research. I said its common sense that humans have this cognition in some form because we are all human.

As for Kuhn I am not saying scientists have to support anything outside science. I was speaking philosophical, how science is seen within society, and not how scientist see themselves within their own discipline.

Kuhn made some well supported points that science actually benefited from and actually changed the way we see science as an endeavour. So science or scientists rather listened to what he had to say because it was profound. Perhaps you would appreciate this if you read some of his ideas.

He wasn't having a go at science or scientist but merely explaining how science works and what it represents in the overall scheme of things within society. Thats its basically a social endeavour which changes with the times.

That science has its own matrix it works within and this includes a worldview about reality which changes with time. But a scientific paradigm may be different to other paradigms within science and even conflicting. They are primarily the products of those who create them for the purposes of whichever discipline they are working within.

Basically its just philosophising about science and its place in the scheme of things. But this also shows how different sectorsd of society can have different ways to seeing and measuring the world and reality and that science is only one way of knowing reality.

You may not be interested but there are many philosophers of science who ponder these things and I think its important as it adds some perspective as to how science works within society and the world.

 

[stevevw]

Paul Harvey, not Hardy.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the correction.

No problem. Every generation has its right-wing, scare mongering commentator. Paul Harvey happens to be mine,

 

[stevevw]

No problem. Every generation has its right-wing, scare mongering commentator. Paul Harvey happens to be mine,

I think the type of scare mongering that Harvey is doing seems to be a repeated theme over and over. As the video mentioned C.S.Lewis was saying something similar in the 40's and another author G. K. Chesterton writing in 1926 in a London paper talking about the way society was headed.

He writes how skepticism was putting people in a condition of doubt, not about the occult but about everyday things. We may soon see a world where a man is howled down for saying 2+2=4, in which furious party cries will be raised against anyone who says cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresay of calling a triangle a 3 sided figure and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.

This is spot on for how Post Modern society is rejecting facts and objective reality, the science for feelings and self referentail truths and reality such as identity rather than bodily reality. We see in the universities especially in the Humanities where everything is being questioned and dismantled including our own history and long held facts and truths we have learned about the world.

 

[BCP1928]

This is spot on for how Post Modern society is rejecting facts and objective reality, the science for feelings and self referential truths and reality such as identity rather than bodily reality.

Sex again.

We see in the universities especially in the Humanities where everything is being questioned and dismantled including our own history and long held facts and truths we have learned about the world.

Particularly the toxic mythology of Western Christian Culture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You have jumped to conclusions here and are going on about something I have not even said or was thinking. Perhaps you should take a bit more time to read and think about what I said.

I stopped reading what you wrote. It is offtopic and much of what you write is wrong.